Understanding Research Integrity and Ethics in Academic Settings

R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
 
I
n
t
e
g
r
i
t
y
T
h
e
 
g
o
o
d
,
 
t
h
e
 
b
a
d
 
a
n
d
 
t
h
e
 
u
g
l
y
!
Dr Maura Hiney, Health Research Board Ireland
Content
Some definitions
Research Integrity in context
Evidence on incidence and prevalence
The failure of self-regulation and peer review
The consequences of misconduct
Research integrity” relates to the
performance of research to the
highest standards of professionalism
and rigour, and to the accuracy and
truth of the research record in
publications and elsewhere.
Research Misconduct
Fabrication
, 
falsification
 or 
plagiarism
in proposing, performing, or reviewing research,
or in reporting research results.
(
Common federal definition)
Definitions of FFP
Fabrication: 
making up results and recording or
reporting them
Falsification: 
manipulating research processes or
changing or omitting data
Plagiarism: 
appropriation of another person’s
ideas, research results or words without giving
appropriate credit
See ESF Code of Practice
Questionable research practices
Personal misconduct
 (intimidation, harassment,
discrimination, misuse of funds…): undesirable or
unacceptable, but not ‘scientific misconduct’
Bad research practices
 (data management, research
procedures, publication related misconduct…);
objectionable, harmful, but not basic infringement of
scientific integrity
Minor misdemeanours 
(tampering with data, cutting
cornes, omitting an unwelcome observation….);
unacceptable infringements of scientific integrity
See OECD List
The link between ethics and integrity
Ensures
 that:
the research is justifiable
the benefits outweigh the
risks
the methodology is sound
participants will be
adequately protected
Ensures
:
that the research is reliable
and objective
impartiality and independence
openness and honestly in
analysis and reporting
upholding of duty of care to
participants and colleagues
Good Research Practice
Research
Ethics
Publication
Ethics
Ensures transparency
:
in declaring funding sources
fairness in attributing
authorship
honestly in reporting results
and conclusions
ownership of ideas and
intellectual property
RESEARCH INTEGRITY
The context of research integrity
A steady rise in scientific ‘productivity’
The context of research integrity
 
A steady rise in scientific publications and the pressure to publish
The context of research integrity
 
1 of 100 public dollars in
US spent on health
research
In Europe approx. 1.75%
of total government
expenditure on R&D
(GERD)
Research is a very much
a public activity
Increasing annual expenditure on R&D
Science and society are linked
Science and society are 
interconnected:
the 
public
, as taxpayers, are major supporters and funders of
research
public support is provided on the understanding that society will
benefit
 from research
But continued public support requires  
credibility
 and
trust
:
Eurobarometer Survey (2010) – 
58%
 of Europeans 
did not
 
trust
scientists to be truthful about controversial issues
Climategate
 rigour and honesty of research not in doubt but
the CRU failed to display the proper degree of   
openness
 and
transparency
Excellent research is done by honest
researchers – so why all the fuss
about research integrity?
Assumptions about misconduct
1.
Serious misconduct in research is rare
2.
Self-regulation keeps improper behavior in check
3.
Research misconduct is difficult to detect
4.
Research misconduct cannot be prevented
5.
Apart from misconduct, standards for integrity in research
are high
Assumptions were based on common perceptions, not
empirical evidence
All five can be questioned!
Slide courtesy of Prof Nick Steneck
Assumption 1: Rarity
2002 Survey by NIH in US
Survey of 7,760 mid- and early-career scientists
All NIH-supported
3,247 respondents;  response rates:
     
- 52% (mid-career), 43% (early-career)
Asked them whether they had ever witnessed or participated in
FFP or questionable research practices
Data courtesy of Prof Nick Steneck
How common are incidents of research misconduct?
Data courtesy of Prof Nick Steneck
Data courtesy of Prof Nick Steneck
 
Was that a once-off observation?
Slide courtesy of Prof Nick Steneck
Geggie, 
J Med Ethics
 (2001)
Survey of 305 new medical consultants in UK (64% responded)
o
55.7% observed misconduct (FFP lower)
o
5.7% committed misconduct in the past
o
18% would commit in future
o
17% had research ethics training
 
Gardner et al
, Contemporary Clinical Trials 
(2005)
Survey of 549 authors of pharmaceutical clinical trials in Cochrane
database from 1998-2001 (64% response)
1% reported target article misrepresented the research
5% reported fabrication in a study they had participated in over the last 10 years
17% knew personally of fabrication in a study over the last 10 years
Meta-analysis of survey data
 
Fanelli, 
PLOS-One 
(2009)
Systematic review of 21 surveys on levels of misconduct over
past 25 years (pooled weighted averages)
Own behaviour
o
1.97% admitted fabrication, falsification or data modification at
least once
o
33.7% admitted other questionable research practices
Witnessed in colleagues
o
14.1% witnessed fabrication, falsification or data modification
at least once
o
72% witnessed other questionable research practices
Misconduct reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological
researchers than others
2010 survey of intervening in misconduct
Koocher and Keith-Spiegel (2010) – survey of 2,599 NIH PIs
Question
How can misconduct be that prevalent, if
the checks and balances work?
If someone changes data, makes it up or copies it
from another scientist, surely that will be spotted
by colleagues, peer reviewers or journal editors?
Not necessarily!
 
Self-regulation keeps improper behavior in check?
o
Darsee published 100 papers with falsified data over 14
years
o
Staple published fraudulent data between 2004-2010
Research misconduct is difficult to detect?
o
Hwang could not have completed work in the time
reported
o
Sudbø, trial not started, patients did not exists, data
repeated
o
Reuben’s data, described as ‘pure fiction’, highly cited
Research misconduct cannot be prevented?
o
Sch
ön’s co-author/mentor did not check experiments or data
o
Poehlman’s MD co-author did not oversee clinical results
Part of slide courtesy of Prof Nick Steneck
It is not just about protecting the
scientific record
 
Werner Bezwoda (1995)
Key trial of the effectiveness of
high dose chemo and bone
marrow transplants for breast
cancer based on faked data
Over 30,000 women underwent
expensive, debilitating and often
fatal transplants (20%)
Study protocol written 9 years
after
 the study began
Trial deaths not reported
Not discovered until 2001
 
Andrew Wakeman (1998)
Seminar paper on the link between
MMR vaccination, gastrointestinal
problems and autism
Without vaccination incidence of
whooping cough, measles,
meningitis greatly increased and
many childhood fatalities
Timelines falsified to create the
appearance of cause and effect in
study subjects (12 children!)
Not uncovered for 13 years
Forensic science 
misconduct
 
Data courtesy of the Innocence Project
Collateral damage to careers
There is collateral damage to the careers of post-
doctoral and other junior researchers working with or
publishing with someone who has been found guilty of
misconduct.
A young scientist’s reputation is tethered to the
successes and failures of their mentor, and when that
mentor is found guilty of misconduct, that disciple will
also be viewed with suspicion.
It can take five to seven years to recover from an
association with misconduct, even if a researcher is
totally innocent of any wrong-doing*
*Observation courtesy of Prof John Ioannidis, Stanford University
Public response to misconduct
Relationship between number of media reports on research 
misconduct, and public confidence in science and scientists
 
Vetenskap & Allmänhet  (2014) - based on 356 news reports on research misconduct
M
isconduct has consequences
Not a victimless crime
 
It damages the 
research record by 
contaminating it with
fraudulent data that may be difficult to eradicate
It hurts 
patients
, who may receive incorrect/fatal treatments
It hurts 
researchers
 and 
disciplines
, which are tarnished by
fraudulent scientists in their midst
It hurts the 
public
, whose faith in research is undermined
It squanders 
public 
money and the efforts of some of the worlds
best minds
More than anything
, it hurts 
science
, when you can’t trust the
data presented or the person presenting it
What about whistle-blowers?
Sometimes seen as
selfless martyrs for public
interest and organizational
accountability
More often viewed unfairly
as "traitors" or "defectors"
Probable that many people
do not consider blowing the
whistle because of fear of
retaliation or of losing their
credibility or job
Key to a fully functioning RI
system so MUST be protected
Everyone needs to be responsible
Koocher and Keith-Spiegel (2010) - based on 2,193 reported incidences
Is it possible to change the culture?
 
Crain 
et al
, Sci Eng Ethics (2012)
Survey of NIH researcher perceptions of research climate in their
university/department AND frequency of FFP/QRP (N=1,267; 50%)
Research climate predictors: regulatory quality, RI support, integrity
norms, integrity inhibitors, advisor-advisee relations, expectations etc.
 
Key Finding
The more positive the organisational research climate, the higher the
likelihood of desirable research practices and the lower the likelihood
of undesirable research practices
The findings are clear that misconduct is not about dealing with a few
"bad apples" but about tackling organisational research climate issues
 
You cannot have excellent research if you do not have a
climate that fosters research integrity
T
h
a
n
k
 
y
o
u
 
f
o
r
 
y
o
u
r
 
a
t
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
References
Gerald P. Koocher & Patricia Keith-Spiegel (2010) 
Peers Nip Misconduct in the Bud
.
Nature. 466
, 438-440
Supplementary material:
http://www.ethicsresearch.com/images/Method_Results_July_22_2010_a.pdf
Danielle Fanelli (2009) 
How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. 
PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738
D Greegie (2001) 
A survey of newly appointed consultants' attitudes towards
research fraud. 
J Medical Ethics, 27:344-346
Gardner W, Lidz CW, Hartwig KC
 (2005) 
Authors' reports about research integrity
problems in clinical trials.  
Contemporary Clinical Trials. 26(2):244-51
Slide Note
Embed
Share

Research integrity is crucial in maintaining professional standards and truthfulness in academic work. This article discusses the definitions of research misconduct, questionable research practices, and the link between ethics and integrity. It covers key aspects such as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, good research practices, and transparency in research processes.


Uploaded on Sep 08, 2024 | 2 Views


Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Research Integrity The good, the bad and the ugly! Dr Maura Hiney, Health Research Board Ireland

  2. Content Some definitions Research Integrity in context Evidence on incidence and prevalence The failure of self-regulation and peer review The consequences of misconduct

  3. Research integrity relates to the performance of research to the highest standards of professionalism and rigour, and to the accuracy and truth of the research record in publications and elsewhere.

  4. Research Misconduct Fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. (Common federal definition)

  5. Definitions of FFP Fabrication: making up results and recording or reporting them Falsification: manipulating research processes or changing or omitting data Plagiarism: appropriation of another person s ideas, research results or words without giving appropriate credit See ESF Code of Practice

  6. Questionable research practices Personal misconduct (intimidation, harassment, discrimination, misuse of funds ): undesirable or unacceptable, but not scientific misconduct Bad research practices (data management, research procedures, publication related misconduct ); objectionable, harmful, but not basic infringement of scientific integrity Minor misdemeanours (tampering with data, cutting cornes, omitting an unwelcome observation .); unacceptable infringements of scientific integrity See OECD List

  7. The link between ethics and integrity RESEARCH INTEGRITY Research Ethics Publication Ethics Good Research Practice Proposal Research/ Experimentation Analysis Dissemination Ensures that: the research is justifiable the benefits outweigh the risks the methodology is sound participants will be adequately protected Ensures: that the research is reliable and objective impartiality and independence openness and honestly in analysis and reporting upholding of duty of care to participants and colleagues Ensures transparency: in declaring funding sources fairness in attributing authorship honestly in reporting results and conclusions ownership of ideas and intellectual property

  8. The context of research integrity A steady rise in scientific productivity

  9. The context of research integrity A steady rise in scientific publications and the pressure to publish

  10. The context of research integrity Increasing annual expenditure on R&D 1 of 100 public dollars in US spent on health research In Europe approx. 1.75% of total government expenditure on R&D (GERD) Research is a very much a public activity

  11. Science and society are linked Science and society are interconnected: the public, as taxpayers, are major supporters and funders of research public support is provided on the understanding that society will benefit from research But continued public support requires credibility and trust: Eurobarometer Survey (2010) 58% of Europeans did nottrust scientists to be truthful about controversial issues Climategate rigour and honesty of research not in doubt but the CRU failed to display the proper degree of openness and transparency

  12. Excellent research is done by honest researchers so why all the fuss about research integrity?

  13. Assumptions about misconduct 1. Serious misconduct in research is rare 2. Self-regulation keeps improper behavior in check 3. Research misconduct is difficult to detect 4. Research misconduct cannot be prevented 5. Apart from misconduct, standards for integrity in research are high Assumptions were based on common perceptions, not empirical evidence All five can be questioned! Slide courtesy of Prof Nick Steneck

  14. Assumption 1: Rarity How common are incidents of research misconduct? 2002 Survey by NIH in US Survey of 7,760 mid- and early-career scientists All NIH-supported 3,247 respondents; response rates: - 52% (mid-career), 43% (early-career) Asked them whether they had ever witnessed or participated in FFP or questionable research practices Data courtesy of Prof Nick Steneck

  15. Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: Self reported 100 80 60 40 20 0 FFP Data Methods Policy Use of funds Outside influence Peer review Credit Cutting corners Data courtesy of Prof Nick Steneck

  16. Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices: Witnessed in others 100 80 60 40 20 0 FFP Data Methods Policy Use of funds Outside influence Peer review Credit Cutting corners Data courtesy of Prof Nick Steneck

  17. Was that a once-off observation? Geggie, J Med Ethics (2001) Survey of 305 new medical consultants in UK (64% responded) o 55.7% observed misconduct (FFP lower) o 5.7% committed misconduct in the past o 18% would commit in future o 17% had research ethics training Gardner et al, Contemporary Clinical Trials (2005) Survey of 549 authors of pharmaceutical clinical trials in Cochrane database from 1998-2001 (64% response) 1% reported target article misrepresented the research 5% reported fabrication in a study they had participated in over the last 10 years 17% knew personally of fabrication in a study over the last 10 years Slide courtesy of Prof Nick Steneck

  18. Meta-analysis of survey data Fanelli, PLOS-One (2009) Systematic review of 21 surveys on levels of misconduct over past 25 years (pooled weighted averages) Own behaviour o 1.97% admitted fabrication, falsification or data modification at least once o 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices Witnessed in colleagues o 14.1% witnessed fabrication, falsification or data modification at least once o 72% witnessed other questionable research practices Misconduct reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others

  19. 2010 survey of intervening in misconduct Catalogue of wrongs (2,193 incidences 84%) Fabrication or falsification Questionable publication practices (such as 'guest' authors) Plagiarism Creating an unsuitable work environment (e.g. sexual harassment) Incompetence (e.g. inappropriate use of statistics) Carelessness (e.g. sloppy record keeping) Dishonesty (e.g. misuse of grant funds) Intentional bias (e.g. rigging a method to favour an outcomes) Failure to follow rules (e.g. ignoring ethical directives) Inadequate supervision of research assistants/students 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Incidents reported Koocher and Keith-Spiegel (2010) survey of 2,599 NIH PIs

  20. Question How can misconduct be that prevalent, if the checks and balances work? If someone changes data, makes it up or copies it from another scientist, surely that will be spotted by colleagues, peer reviewers or journal editors?

  21. Not necessarily! Self-regulation keeps improper behavior in check? o Darsee published 100 papers with falsified data over 14 years o Staple published fraudulent data between 2004-2010 Research misconduct is difficult to detect? o Hwang could not have completed work in the time reported o Sudb , trial not started, patients did not exists, data repeated o Reuben s data, described as pure fiction , highly cited Research misconduct cannot be prevented? o Sch n s co-author/mentor did not check experiments or data o Poehlman s MD co-author did not oversee clinical results Part of slide courtesy of Prof Nick Steneck

  22. It is not just about protecting the scientific record Werner Bezwoda (1995) Key trial of the effectiveness of high dose chemo and bone marrow transplants for breast cancer based on faked data Over 30,000 women underwent expensive, debilitating and often fatal transplants (20%) Study protocol written 9 years after the study began Trial deaths not reported Not discovered until 2001 Andrew Wakeman (1998) Seminar paper on the link between MMR vaccination, gastrointestinal problems and autism Without vaccination incidence of whooping cough, measles, meningitis greatly increased and many childhood fatalities Timelines falsified to create the appearance of cause and effect in study subjects (12 children!) Not uncovered for 13 years

  23. Forensic science misconduct Data courtesy of the Innocence Project

  24. Collateral damage to careers There is collateral damage to the careers of post- doctoral and other junior researchers working with or publishing with someone who has been found guilty of misconduct. A young scientist s reputation is tethered to the successes and failures of their mentor, and when that mentor is found guilty of misconduct, that disciple will also be viewed with suspicion. It can take five to seven years to recover from an association with misconduct, even if a researcher is totally innocent of any wrong-doing* *Observation courtesy of Prof John Ioannidis, Stanford University

  25. Public response to misconduct Relationship between number of media reports on research misconduct, and public confidence in science and scientists 100 90 Medical - confidence 80 70 Medical - news reports 60 Humanities - confidence 50 Humanities - news reports 40 Social sciences - confidence 30 20 Social sciences - news reports 10 Linear (Social sciences - news reports) 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Vetenskap & Allm nhet (2014) - based on 356 news reports on research misconduct

  26. Misconduct has consequences Not a victimless crime It damages the research record by contaminating it with fraudulent data that may be difficult to eradicate It hurts patients, who may receive incorrect/fatal treatments It hurts researchers and disciplines, which are tarnished by fraudulent scientists in their midst It hurts the public, whose faith in research is undermined It squanders public money and the efforts of some of the worlds best minds More than anything, it hurts science, when you can t trust the data presented or the person presenting it

  27. What about whistle-blowers? Sometimes seen as selfless martyrs for public interest and organizational accountability More often viewed unfairly as "traitors" or "defectors" Probable that many people do not consider blowing the whistle because of fear of retaliation or of losing their credibility or job Key to a fully functioning RI system so MUST be protected

  28. Everyone needs to be responsible Outcomes of interventions* *Respondents could select more than one answer and report on multiple incidents Intervener felt no negative fallout Suspect did nothing to correct the problem Suspect corrected the problem Suspect denied the problem Event was elevated to a local office Suspect understood but couldn't correctproblem Intervener suffered emotional costs only Intervener was treated with disrespect Intervener gained respect Suspect did not respond tointervention Event was elevated to fedral level Intervener felt career was jeopardized Intervener suffered loss of reputation Intervener suffered social costs Intervener had no support from institution Intervener feared legal action Concern turned out to be unwarranted 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percentage of interveners who reported this outcome Koocher and Keith-Spiegel (2010) - based on 2,193 reported incidences

  29. Is it possible to change the culture? Crain et al, Sci Eng Ethics (2012) Survey of NIH researcher perceptions of research climate in their university/department AND frequency of FFP/QRP (N=1,267; 50%) Research climate predictors: regulatory quality, RI support, integrity norms, integrity inhibitors, advisor-advisee relations, expectations etc. Key Finding The more positive the organisational research climate, the higher the likelihood of desirable research practices and the lower the likelihood of undesirable research practices The findings are clear that misconduct is not about dealing with a few "bad apples" but about tackling organisational research climate issues You cannot have excellent research if you do not have a climate that fosters research integrity

  30. Thank you for your attention

  31. References Gerald P. Koocher & Patricia Keith-Spiegel (2010) Peers Nip Misconduct in the Bud. Nature. 466, 438-440 Supplementary material: http://www.ethicsresearch.com/images/Method_Results_July_22_2010_a.pdf Danielle Fanelli (2009) How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5738. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005738 D Greegie (2001) A survey of newly appointed consultants' attitudes towards research fraud. J Medical Ethics, 27:344-346 Gardner W, Lidz CW, Hartwig KC (2005) Authors' reports about research integrity problems in clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 26(2):244-51

Related


More Related Content

giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#giItT1WQy@!-/#